The Republican field may get the press corps on its knees yet. Between Rick Perry leading prayer rallies and Michele Bachmann considering God more a part of her life than a mere “safe harbor,” newsrooms may be praying for someone who doesn’t take their faith so seriously!

It all began during Thursday night’s Fox News Washington Examiner debate. My friend and former colleague Bryon York asked the Minnesota congresswoman: “In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained, But the Lord said, ‘Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.’ As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

And he was booed.

Bachmann, without missing a beat, answered the question before she even started talking, with a smile.

After the Minnesota congresswoman won the Iowa straw poll in Ames Saturday, she did a round of Sunday-show interviews. NBC host David Gregory dug deeper on the submission issue, putting the question in some more context and pressing Bachmann.

And on much more than submission. He went exactly where he had to for full context: to God.

Gregory asked Bachmann: “To what extent is he a motivator for decisions that you make?” He pressed, with the sound of disbelief — pun intended — in his voice: “Would God guide your decisions you would make as president of the United States?” He went on: “There is a difference between God as a sense of comfort and safe harbor and inspiration and God telling you to take a particular action.”

Well, there sure is.

I’ve always had an uncomfortable relationship with the Sunday shows. As someone who has always taken an interest in politics, seeing its relationship to human lives, yelling at the TV on Sunday morning before or after church has never seemed quite right. Of course, maybe the problem has always been my yelling, not the day of the week the talking points are being delivered and challenged. But you see my point.

And if you were watching Meet the Press Sunday morning, you saw the clearest example yet of the problem.

The problem is far deeper than the day of the week or the time of day for a talking-head show. The problem is how we make God work in our schedule. The problem is that it could ever be considered mainstream Christianity to see God as nothing but a safe harbor and inspiration, like a lone quote on an inspirational calendar. David Gregory went on to ask whether she would appoint atheists in her administration. Meanwhile, how many Americans, particularly those in and around Washington, would consider the only qualified Christian one who didn’t actually take Christianity all that seriously?

I asked Nancy French, an evangelical writer, to address the submission issue on National Review Online on Friday. She wrote about how she frequently has to make decisions about what freelance jobs she is going to pursue and which she is going to decline.

She wrote: “On one occasion, my husband told me directly that writing a certain celebrity’s story was not going to be good for our family. Even though I’d already started the process of interviewing (and wanted to take the job), I declined. Since then, as I’ve seen other writers struggle with the task, it’s apparent that my husband’s inclination was correct. In this case especially, I was thankful for his leadership.”

Regarding the issue of Bachmann submitting to her husband’s direction, Nancy wrote: “Bachmann also had a decision to make about the direction of her career. In fact, York referred to Bachmann’s statement that she didn’t want to pursue a degree in tax law, though, ultimately, deferred to her husband’s judgment on the issue. She rightly heeded her husband’s advice and counsel on the direction of her life. This doesn’t make her a passive non-entity who, if elected, would be the ‘Wife-in-Chief’ instead of the commander-in-chief. There’s nothing in the Bible that says she must defer to her husband’s judgment in how she does her job. Moreover, she would have a legal, occupational, and — yes — biblical responsibility to perform that task. In other words, when you hire a Christian woman, you aren’t really hiring her husband. Similarly, when you vote for a Christian candidate, you aren’t actually voting for her husband.”

It is true that Rep. Bachmann is not running for “wife-in-chief.” But Nancy also made another excellent point: This submission issue is like John F. Kennedy’s papal issue. Is it the pope or is it Marcus Bachmann who is really running for president? It’s a question that is asked because there is a discomfort with real Christianity. Discomfort that anyone who struggles to make what they profess real in their lives knows all too well. It’s the discomfort we’ve had since the Fall. It’s the discomfort he came here for and died for. And unlike JFK, Bachmann does not appear to have any interest in backing down.

Her identity as an American, who appreciates that God has “shed his grace on thee,” is inseparable from her calling as a politician. It is inseparable from her life as a wife and mother. As a candidate, she presents herself as a fully integrated person. You don’t have to be contributing to her campaign or want her to be president of the United States to appreciate that.

There was a beautiful moment during that Meet the Press exchange where David Gregory, being the conventional feminist in the room, tried to make a little joke of it. “Congresswoman, I didn’t even have to check with my wife, and I know those two things aren’t equal: submission and respect,” Gregory said with a laugh.

But Bachmann wasn’t playing. There’s no hurtful female chauvinist power play in her. Men and women are not natural adversaries, and she’s not going to pretend otherwise — even for political gain. In the Bachmann household, she said, there is a “mutual respect.” Rather than our pop-culture view of the man as the dope of the household (just flip to one of those frequently running repeats of Everybody Loves Raymond and you’ll see it). “We are a good team together,” she said of her marriage. Going one step farther: In a Christian household, one would pray, the man and woman complement one another as they live out their vocations united in God, who has joined them together.

Whatever comes of the Bachmann candidacy, she’s presenting herself as an integrated whole, as a Christian running for president. She’s introduced a little sanity into the war-of-the-sexes nonsense we’re all too often comfortable exploiting for political, professional, even personal purposes. (Notably she seems to

< a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270994/forget-you-feminism-kathryn-jean-lopez"_blank">

have no time for even reinventing the f-word.) As men and women more openly tire of the pain the sexual revolution has wrought, she’s a candidate for our times, reasserting the conviction that nothing good comes from relegating God to an hour on Sunday, fit in between things we’ve decided matter more.

Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Good Afternoon, Jeanne,
I’ll admit to having a tough time making complete sense of your comments here. For the record, I’m 37. While I’ve heard about what happens at rave parties, I wouldn’t know from experience; I’ve never been to a rave party. On a side note though, I should think we’d be embracing those who HAVE and seek to limit the damage such activities would inflict. They would know better than many.
As to the Catholic Answers non-negotiatables, I must assume that you’re peeved about them because..they’re very direct about their view. Well, what about it? I don’t believe they’ve ever claimed to be an official branch of the Church, but I don’t think there’s any need. They have a right to speak the Truth just the same as you or I.

Campaigning for a particular candidate, whether legal or not, would not be a wise move. Doing so WOULD tend to give the appearance that a particular church believes in such a candidate. That would be risky at best. However, churches CAN allow for homilies and speeches addressing major issues of the day. We CAN allow a priest to challenge us with what the Church teaches and to challenge us to carefully examine what the candidates say. There’s no reason we shouldn’t do that.

As to making ourselves heard: Our bishops have responsibility to ensure that candidates who claim to be Catholic..actually live up to those standards. How long did Ted Kennedy ignore Catholic teaching when he voted? How long have Nancy Pelosi, Vice President Joe Biden, John Kerry, or other public officials failed to defend life? (And how many popes do we need to publicly make abortion a high priority before we expect such attitudes from Catholic politicians?) How long have their bishops failed to correct them?

So we need to follow the bishops. I agree. So..when do the bishops intend to genuinely lead? Sure, there are a few that do, Chaput and Bruskewitz come to mind, some others too. On the whole though, the bishops haven’t said a great deal. Most of what they have said..doesn’t precisely bind us morally.

Then too, the issue of what Bachmann will or will not do. Do we know for certain that she’ll be capable of eliminating abortion? Well, due to what law actually says, she’s not capable of doing so exactly. She can’t overturn the Supreme Court. She CAN, however, propose law to limit abortion more intensely.

You also speak of someone holding me accountable to what they didn’t do. OK. I don’t think I have anything to fear from that. Not in a political sense anyway. What failures I’ve committed I address to a priest in confession, as you suggest. ..I think we all have some degree of guilt for what we haven’t done in our lifetimes. I don’t see why that would worry you. Such guilt..can lead people to pursue virtue.
That’s GOOD.

On the whole, I get the impression that you’re angry at someone else, but your reasons are..somewhat fuzzy. I can’t tell if you’re peeved because abortions still happen, or because the candidates have been pretty weak for a long time, or something else.

Which reminds me: If our candidates haven’t been stellar, ever consider why? Could it be that We, the People, especially the Catholic faithful, have not done well in our role of teaching, preaching, and living the faith? Maybe we need some improvement in how we conduct our lives.
I agree.

Unfortunately, keep in mind that politicians aren’t going to start telling the whole truth when we request it. They’re going to dither, equivocate, obfuscate, and lie. At least from my point of view or yours. Well, instead of howling about that, how about if you challenge others to be sticky about their faith and what it implies? How about if you expect them to hold politicians accountable to their actions—or lack thereof? Yes, it’s difficult to do, partly because there’re so many people even within the Catholic ranks that view various issues from distinctly contrary points of view.

I don’t think we’ll solve that problem anytime soon.
But neither do I see anyone organizing the prayer crusades and other efforts to bring the current state of affairs to an end.
I don’t see you proposing such a thing either.

Seems to me we can’t well howl about political failings when we ourselves haven’t done much to solve the problem….

Posted by Jeanne in Florida on Thursday, Aug, 18, 2011 1:08 PM (EDT):

And are the Pope with a well formed Catholic CONSCIENCE? We need to call the Vatican and tell them you are a contender to Pope Benedict 16.

Long since past time since we make ourselves heard? WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THEY DIDN’T MAKE THEMSELVES HEARD? I am indignant. I am 48. Most of the young people who come forward AND say that were AT RAVE PARTIES in the mid 90s doing stuff I can’t talk or write about. You all do not fool me. STOP TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR THE CRAP YOU DID.

It is not about state law… you can get yourself kicked off the campus of a church if they are campaigning on the campus of a church in FLA. OUR STATE BISHOPS do not allow this. Catholic Answers five non negiotiable points is NOT AN OFFICIAL BROCHURE OF THE USCCB, THE OFFICIAL RC arm of AMERICAN BISHOPS.

THERE ARE TOO MANY NEWBIES OR OVER ENTHUSIES RUNNING AROUND ACTING LIKE THEY KNOW IT ALL. I believe in God’s mercy, but didn’t the twelve send over enthusiastic St Paul who was a newbie to the faith to ARABIA FOR SEVERAL YEARS???? Read Acts.

Yeah shut up and vote there is not much to choose from… Hey I hear there are cheap rates in the desert for LONG VACATIONS.

If she wins, someone will find you and well back you up against a mystical wall and hold you accountable for what they didn’t do. She is not going to get rid of abortion or anything she says she is or promises to do so. People like you are the reason why Pastors in church offices have doorbells and intercoms.

If you don’t follow the Bishops, you are NOT LOYAL TO THE MAGISTERIUM. WE NEED TO BACK UP PEOPLE like YOU and fine tooth comb just exactly WHAT YOU DO REALLY BELIEVE. THEN WE WILL TELL YOUR LOCAL BISHOP. Stop playing like you are better than everyone else. It is sickening.

What the bishops say in the matters of faith and morals MATTERS MORE THAN OUR OPINIONS. GOT THAT??? THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM THAT YOU PUT YOUR OPINION ON MATTERS OF VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO LIE. GO TO CONFESSION.

Posted by John on Wednesday, Aug, 17, 2011 5:58 PM (EDT):

Jeanne,
It’s not a matter of preaching in favor of safe sex or whatever, though I have heard of that happening. No, the problem is a failure to preach on these matters at all. Apparently, we don’t wish to “offend” people, so we fail to hear the whole of the Truth from the pulpit. Being Catholic has little meaning if you can’t express your opinions based on your faith.

As to the state of things in Florida, your remark doesn’t really proclaim whether the state law forbids campaigns of all kinds or whether that’s a local decision made by the bishops. If it’s the former, you need to work to change the law, because it’s violating your First Amendment rights to free speech AND freedom of religious expression. If it’s the bishops’ choices, I’m sure they have their reasons.

I would suggest that your press to “Shut up and vote” might explain a good deal of our problem. Too many people have fallen silent on key concerns, so when they go into the voting booth, they don’t vote according to a well-formed Catholic conscience.

We won’t see people develop that same conscience if we don’t have a vigorous discussion ourselves.
It’s long since past time to make ourselves heard!

Posted by jeanne in Tampa on Wednesday, Aug, 17, 2011 5:22 PM (EDT):

Claim what you want to suit your whims about what the church is or is not good enough for you. NEVER in the Diocese of St Pete did I or have I heard Any of our priests or clergy or seminarians preach SAFE SEX, OR CONTRACEPTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

HERE IN FLORIDA YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CAMPAIGN ON CHURCH PROPERTY: PERIOD. HERE WE SHUT UP AND VOTE.

How I wish others would do the same. But are you all really Catholic? Don’t ask about us until you visit and then tell our local Bish here.

Socialism and free health care like in Italy or Germany would be nice.

Who is your bishop or what actual lodge do you belong to?

Posted by John on Wednesday, Aug, 17, 2011 3:02 PM (EDT):

Good Afternoon,
Megan, I’ve re-read your comments, and I see nothing amiss in mine.
I don’t know for sure what you mean by “using the Church as a tool” or “some petty, stupid American election”. Perhaps that’s the problem.

For my part, I think the latter comment quite offensive. By this, we might begin to think that elections and this nation have little, if any consequence. I don’t believe that at all and I hope you don’t mean it that way. You might mean that you’re alarmed by all the bickering amongst people of faith. I certainly hope that’s what you intend.

As for whether Church teaching leans one way or the other..well, that’s not quite the way I look at it. I tend to think that our votes, like our lives, must be educated and inspired by Catholic faith. We have a legal right to choose our leadership, thus also a moral responsibility to help choose them appropriately. We must know what our faith teaches and why; we must discern which candidates best represent ideals that conform with our Catholic faith. We must vote appropriately. I can’t say I’m thrilled with the two parties myself, but I CAN say that one has tended to conform to orthodox Catholic teaching much more than has the other. I didn’t ask them to differ so badly from the Church, they’ve done that on their own.

Posted by Megan on Wednesday, Aug, 17, 2011 11:43 AM (EDT):

John, you seem to be under the impression that I am promoting one political agenda or another. Please re-read my comment and, if able, put aside your own partisan agenda. I don’t care if you are a republican or a democrat or whatever, using the Church as a tool to promote a political agenda belittles the Church and all of us. I don’t care how anyone votes but don’t dare tell me that Catholic teaching takes the side of one party or one party represents Catholic teaching because that is an utterly foolish belief. And don’t give me the arguments about what was done in the past; just because someone else did it once before does not make anything OK. I learned that in first grade.

Posted by John on Wednesday, Aug, 17, 2011 3:49 AM (EDT):

Megan,
I’ve read comments like this much more over the past few years. I find these statements..well, difficult to believe. I agree we’ve seen a great deal more effort expended on proposing the Republican agenda. FINALLY!!
I’d contend that such efforts come about 20 years after they should have; if anything, the Church’s general efforts in the political arena have struck me as being almost in lock-step with the Democrats.

And I DO mean lockstep!
For most of my teens and early 20’s, based on what clergy and others did say or not, I had the distinct impression that we had a near moral obligation to advocate socialism.
As well, regardless of what John Paul II might say, few clergy seemed to ever dispute any politician who would advocate abortion, safe sex, or similar ideas.

If we’ve seen anything in the past several years, I’d say it’s been a realization that we aren’t morally obligated to be Democrats.
What a relief!

Posted by Megan on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 7:35 PM (EDT):

And I would add that the level of political vitriol here is cause for grave scandal on the part of the posters and the moderator and I think reconciliation is in order.

Posted by Megan on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 7:31 PM (EDT):

I see those like elcid, who use the Church to further a partisan political goal, are out also. May God have mercy on those who condemn His Church to just another instrument of politics. The Church is so much bigger than some petty, stupid American election. It’s so sad that so many are so blind to that and in their rage against a politician they seem to forget Jesus ever existed.

Posted by John on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 6:45 PM (EDT):

If I may comment first about Mr. Gregory:
In charity to him, I haven’t watched his show, so I don’t know if he’s truly as intentionally derisive as he seemed. He may, in fact, genuinely believe that religious concerns..only come from fruitcakes. It’s possible he intended these questions genuinely. If so, we have MUCH work to do!

To the point though: Would I vote for a Protestant over a Catholic?
Well, when the Protestant vigorously proposes and defends concepts in concert with Catholic teaching and the Catholic actively DEFIES those same teachings..YES, I WILL vote for a Protestant over a Catholic!

If you think Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, or other self-proclaimed, possibly even “practical” Catholics have carried a bright torch for faith..I think you have a serious problem with understanding Catholic faith!

Most Catholics who’ve been elected as Democrats have, themselves, placed political bent over Catholic faith many times.

PDA: Mrs. Bachmann’s answer went right where it needed to go. She commented that she and her husband understand “submission” to be a reference to mutual respect between husband and wife. Her comments also declared how she would certainly pray for guidance with difficult decisions. Mr. Gregory did his best to portray her as a fruitcake; she skillfully handled the question, emphasizing how the average, normal Christian will address life concerns.

I think she did quite well. I’d like to hear more from the two Ricks, Santorum and Perry, though.

Posted by Jeanne in Tampa on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 5:14 PM (EDT):

Hey PDA>>> are you really reading this….??? Do you need to borrow my bifocals?

Not on this website.. they more than likely have too many hands from the fringe right on their la la land pockets instead of lending their obedient hearts to our Triune God in his True Mystical Body the Church.

Turns out that alll this Catholics going in the direction of a Moral Majority is almost even not worse than the Liberation Theology that BL JPII condemned!

Better pray about this .

Posted by ThirstforTruth on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 4:38 PM (EDT):

It is interesting to note that here, on a Catholic blog, one would expect the comments to come from one’s Catholicity FIRST and political “bent”
SECOND. It seems to be quite the oppposite. Those who are obviously Republican cut Bachman some slack..while the Dems clearly are going for her jugular. If one sticks strictly to the issue here…which asks if this MTP interview was Bachman’s JFK moment.. is about whether you agree or disagree? I thought she handled this cross between a catch 22 and a gotcha question from Gregory with great aplomb. She did not get “sucked into” the place where Gregory wanted her and answered forthrightly without either denying her
beliefs nor placing herself in jeapordy politically.( questions like that are intended to put one on point politically) Whether she submits to her husband in marital matters ( which the whole submission issue is about) is none of anyone’s business. She is running for the office of the President. Because she is a woman..and we, unlike the rest of the free world, have never elected a woman President…she must submit to questions like Gregory’s that would never be asked of a male candidate. Bachman proved she is ready for the David Gregory’s of the biased media last Sunday. The average voter is more interested in the vital issues facing this Nation than the media ilk give credit. Regardless of what
“brand” of Lutheran Bachman is, her duties as President will not likely be
affected on how she views the Pope to whom she owes no submission. Such
diversionary tactics are not helpful in making decisions about whom to vote for. Totally irrelevant. In Kennedy’s case he was Catholic so there
was in some minds a relevency, even though in fact, Kennedy was a danger only to himself regarding his Catholicism as time went on to prove. His response to the question he was asked was political.His religion factored
not in the equation. He knew this even if others did not. Bachman answered the questions without jeapordizing either her beliefs or her
political policies. Brilliant answer! Brilliant woman!

Posted by Jeanne in Tampa on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 3:35 PM (EDT):

WEak tea… I like that expression about as good as they yell bad Catholic when people who DO NOT LIVE THE GOSPEL YELL “BAD cATHOLICS.”

Where do they get their authority to call anyone a BAD CATHOLIC??? WHERE IS YOUR LOCAL BISHOP??? A Protestant over a Catholic??? From what Masonic lodge do you cometh from??

Why do you say that? Where do you get your authority to say that?? From what bishop do you get this authority? Was there liturgical service to give you this authority? Did we kneel publically and protest and cause a scene in a fancy restaurant that we .. uh errr you are more perfect than everyone else because you do everything at home and call everyone else NO GOOD… WHICH is not in line with the Holy Scriptures???

Boasting is as boasting does.. St Paul said that of the Galatians.. “You foolish Galatians..”.. stick yourself right in there….”

Posted by Orville Bellar on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 3:07 PM (EDT):

Bachmann is a woman so she will not be elected, we are not mature enough to elect her.

Posted by PDA on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 1:39 PM (EDT):

Well, that’s not a terribly insightful comment. If one is convinced of the need for public safety, by this reasoning, a reasonable response could be to go don a mask and a cape and chase bad guys. It’s not necessarily to dragoon the authority of government to compel everyone else in the country to fight crime. If one feels an extensive highway system is important, a reasonable response could be to grab a pick and shovel and some asphalt. It’s not necessarily to dragoon the authority of government to compel everyone else in the country to go build roads.

The way our political system works is that one builds an electoral majority to enact the policies one favors. If one is unable to do that, sitting around complaining about others “dragoon[ing] the authority of government” seems rather weak tea.

Posted by elm on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 1:22 PM (EDT):

A devoted Protestant any day over a bad Catholic.

Posted by Jeanne in Tampa on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 1:03 PM (EDT):

Why are you all soooooo excited about Republicans in the FIRST PLACE??? Can’t you think?

Don’t you dare give me that crap about Republicans and abortion… Nixon was Republican and started abortion. The guy Ables who run the Fox News has been tied to hacking and other stuff. It is getting bad folks.

Stand up for Christianity and NOT JUST some Political party. It is sickenng.

Did the Republicans and the Tea Party DIE AND RISE FOR YOU?

Don’t think so. It is getting bad when you tell people they are going to hell because they do not vote your way.

Get over it… shut up and live the Gospel. Kick the Masons out. They push us the Catholics around. Since when does any old Christian do??

Posted by Terry on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 11:23 AM (EDT):

Do you see the word “antichrist” anywhere in my comment? I said he was “evil” and he is. Anyone who supports the murder of babes in the womb and supports homosexual marriage is evil. Period.

Posted by Richard A on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 10:43 AM (EDT):

Well, pray for him, and for our country first of all.

Don’t call him the “anti-Christ”. I’m pretty sure the anti-Christ will be a lot smarter.

With regard to Catholic social teaching: if the love of Christ burning in your heart convicts you of the need to help the poor, a reasonable response could be to go help the poor. It’s not necessarily to dragoon the authority of government to compel everyone else in the country to go help the poor according to your vision of helping the poor.

Posted by Terry on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 8:10 AM (EDT):

Bachmann is wonderful. So is Perry. Faithful Catholics need to do everything they can to get rid of that evil man in the White House.

Posted by John on Tuesday, Aug, 16, 2011 4:19 AM (EDT):

For those of you who might be thinking that elcid’s comments rude, you might want to know: I had much the same thought!

For the record, Catholic social teaching does, indeed, decry the nasty gap between wealthy and not. Or more accurately it condemns the greed on the part of the wealthy that tends to spawn that gap and causes it to grow wider. To my knowledge, Catholic faith does not condemn being wealthy. ..It DOES, however, fail to endorse the use of government means to “force” everyone to be economically equal.

Submission is a very misunderstood word. It does not mean being a doormat to someone. Rather, it’s literal meaning is to ‘put yourself under the mission of’ someone else. The husband’s mission is to die for the sake of his wife, to die to self and to die literally to protect her if necessary. Any woman would be a fool not to put herself under that mission.

Posted by Squeaky McCrinkle on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 11:12 PM (EDT):

Frankly, I don’t think any website that allows President Obama to be called the “anti-christ” deserves serious consideration. Same goes for Michele Bachmann - a religious extremist, a disgrace to the United States of America and an absolute joke to the rest of the world.

Posted by sam on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 7:43 PM (EDT):

Bachmann is NOT qualified for POTUS. We already have been there w/the present one - an unqualified person.
Simply being a Christian and prolife, does not qualify her for POTUS. She lacks serious experience but is being coached while campaigning just like “O”. Give me a break, please. We need a POTUS who has governing experience; big business experience; and political experience all of which translate into actual accomplishments. Bachmann has none of these. Don’t start drinking cool aid by voting for someone as unqualified as she is and as unelectable as she is. She’s too tied to the TP which is a form of cronyism; no POTUS should be obliged to any one group. A POTUS needs to be an independent who considers ALL the people, ALL the time. She’s a glib talker just like “O” but even he has more experience now than she will have by 2012. Lopez is falling all over herself w/re to what she perceives as a religious candidate. JFK was not a religious candidate indeed he was an embarrassment to Catholicism as was his brother Ted and many of the family w/all their personal and political scandals. What about Pelosi, a Catholic? As Catholics we are expected to vote for qualified people as well as moral and ethical people. The only candidate who presently fits the needed qualifications is Romney. No scandals - personal or political. Lifelong commitment to his spouse, his family and his faith. He has governance experience, business creds including international (Olympics Games which he turned around from bankrupty) and private industry; he is well educated; has plenty of political experience; and he has a solid character. People who refer to any flip-flopping by him need to grow up and realize that what he has done is changed his mind on some issues which is a sign of maturity. Only the immature are unable to change their opinion once they have the facts. Bachmann showed her immaturity by protesting (per the TP) raising the debt ceiling which was totally irresponsible. She will never get my vote. The world is more than the 20% TP.

I WILL STATE IT PLAIN AND SIMPLE ... IF YOU ARE A CATHOLIC AND YOU SUPPORT HER, YOU have issues because she doesn’t like poor people and she lies and is anti-Catholic.

Just tell me something… how do you come up with even giving her press in the first place??? Between her and Palin and Perry I thought you (*it wouldn’t be nice to give you all the name I want,) had more common sense than that.

I have to wonder how your thought and prayer processes work.. immature.

Posted by Claire on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 7:14 PM (EDT):

My husband and I have a mutually respectful marriage. Respect to us does not mean ‘submission’, for either of us. Anything that affects our lives and our marriage are decisions that are made together. Has he influenced my decisions? Absolutely. But I have also influenced his. Together we discuss our lives and how we live without me losing my feminity or my husband losing his masculinity. We have been married for almost 42 years and it is this partnership of mutual respect and love that make it work.

Posted by elcid on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 7:11 PM (EDT):

@Spartacus…ahhh…your a marxists! and the truth hurts huh.

Posted by David Carlon on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 6:46 PM (EDT):

welfare for the wealthy plutarchy and corporatcracy is good… evil is good and good is evil is the meme of the entrenched Herodian democratic and republican party… the water is rising and coming in ever greater and frequent waves… God have mercy.

Posted by I am not Spartacus on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 6:43 PM (EDT):

elcid. Liberality in insults and economy of good will is a recipe for captious commentary but it really begs a lot of questions.

Is your thinking so binary that opposition to Bachman means one must be a liberal?

Do you not think the Catholic Social Teaching condemns the enormous gap that exists twixt rich and poor and calls for an increase in the ownership of property and capital so that the wage-slaves will not be part of a permanent proletariat?

Posted by BillJ on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 6:36 PM (EDT):

I appluad Michelle for standing up for God and marraige. Its funny how many liberals today are so completely baffled by Christianity.

Posted by Mike on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 6:08 PM (EDT):

For the record, I was for years—before my return to Catholicism—a member of that “radical Lutheran sect,” and I can tell you that it was nothing of the sort. There are conservative Lutheran pastors who still hold strong convictions about the evils of “popery,” but they are able to defend those convictions with eloquence and intelligence. I happen to believe they’re mistaken—on this particular issue—but they’re not mindless bigots, and I admire the fact that they’re too serious about their theology to blur the differences between Lutheran and Catholic doctrine in order to get along. This “radical Lutheran sect” is largely a creation of the media, and of those “peace & justice” Catholics who are, as usual, carrying water for the Democratic party.

Posted by elcid on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 6:02 PM (EDT):

I see the radical liberal catholics are out in force! and for the record catholics (50%) did put aside any religious belief in the last presidential election and voted for the anti-christ that is currently in the white house.
And for you social liberal catholics out there…I suggest you educate your illiterate selves and read Pope Leo XIII ” Rerum Novarum”, this is the foundation for catholic social teaching, this poor vs rich argument is getting really old, it’s the democrat party and they’re own particuliar form of slavery called the welfare system that’s keeping people in poverty, we see the effects of socialism in all it’s forms in Britain, I’m all for helping people and giving to charities and such, but I want my money to be put to good use and have people become independent not dependent.

Posted by PDA on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 5:57 PM (EDT):

It’s interesting that Ms. Lopez does not tell us how Rep. Bachmann responded to the question. During his own “JFK moment,” one remembers that Jack Kennedy actually had to SAY SOMETHING.

Posted by Matthew on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 5:03 PM (EDT):

Greetings from Malaysia! I identify myself as a traditional Catholic and I have always consider the National Catholic Register to be one of the most credible Catholic newspapers in the world. I am however surprised that the NCR seems to be throwing its weight for this economics dumbnut who is a member of a Lutheran sect that still considers the Pope to be the Antichrist. More so when she belongs to radical right wing group that wants to turn the clock back on economic progress. I’m more dumbfounded by the perception that being a faithful Catholic in the US entails a certain degree of support for right wing neo-liberal economics. Should’t Americans, including Catholics, be voting for someone not based on his/her religion or ethnicity?

Posted by I am not Spartacus on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 4:21 PM (EDT):

“I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States.” She went on: “We have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play.”

Mrs. Bachman, Dubya in a dress. Didn’t we get enough of this king of erroneous evangelical doctrine with the male Bush?

Posted by surfcitysocal on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 4:02 PM (EDT):

I thought Bachmann answered the submission question beautifully. In a way, it’s a fair question because people might wonder if she’s elected—and I hope she is—if her husband might be the one calling the shots. Deborah, as the only woman judge in Judges—and married—suggests that a woman being in charge, while rare, is perfectly acceptable. Early in our marriage, my husband “encouraged” me with regard to a direction my career might take, which led to me realizing much satisfaction and reward years later in my career, which may not have taken place if I’d ignored his advice, encouragement—or whatever you want to call it. More importantly, submission is so often taken out of context—the often quoted passage also says the husband needs to submit to Christ. And how did Christ, the “head”, show he loved the church? By giving his life for it. And so submitting really means being mutually sacrificial and caring enough about one another to put another’s needs ahead of your own. But what’s most disturbing to me is the incredible sexist attitude that this country has toward conservative women as we already saw with Palin. The opposition will savage Bachmann, while if it were Hillary Clinton, they would embrace her. Darn those pesky conservative convictions.

Posted by Omar on Monday, Aug, 15, 2011 2:42 PM (EDT):

Michele Bachmann is no JFK. In fact that woman has been in a Radical Lutheran Church that preaches Anti-Catholicism and regards the Holy Father as an Anti-Christ. Her profound ignorance on things like Economics and her complete disregard of our Church’s Ancient and Moral Code regarding the Poor and Afflicted make her unelectable.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.